What Criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter

[Lighthunmust]

Thats what research and good sources are for. Its just my opinion but money shouldn't be an incentive for research. And Flight Sim sites - again, in my opinion - are not the place to look for data.

Lighting - can you list what criteria so far (that everyone has agreed) that would be acceptable? Don't want to add something already posted.

If you look at posting #1 you will see notes on the locations of this information. I would not say the "everyone has agreed" on criteria, but there has been very little disagreement about criteria per say. One of the best things to come out in this thread is the disagreement over what sources of performance data for applying the criteria are the best. I was planning to do another summary of significant posts when we reached post #200. I think I better get started on that sooner because of the important discussions on sources. I have been closely following these discussions and have some thoughts about how we can address the issue in the most practicable way. Before I do that, please consider the following: most of the performance data issues concern the charts and tables of speed, climb rate, turning radius, roll rate, range, etc.. What I don't see being addressed are the myriad other factors affecting ultimate performance of pilots and aircraft over a period of combat usage. That kind of data chart and table is harder to come by. I'll get an update and some additional thoughts up as soon as possible. Thank you for your interest in the thread.

 

[Lighthunmust]

I will have to disagree with you on this. Less that max power may be what you would want to use for maneuvering for combat, but when it comes to yanking and banking and the bullets flying are not virtual, all the power you can get is life or death to you and victory or defeat in combat.


Please clarify this statement. Is 846 an airspeed number of some sort?


An undeniably true statement, but to dismiss allied aircraft as being inferior to German aircraft and won only because of numbers is incorrect. Except for the jet, all the advanced German propeller driven aircraft could be matched by Allied aircraft of equal or better performance, except maybe the Ta-152H at altitudes above 35k ft. But then I don't thing nitrous was particularly rocket science.

This is a valid point and one I have pondered for quite a while. In my mind there are only two useful comparisons between aircraft. One, which I did above, is to compare the aircraft under similar load levels, which provides capability of the aircraft design itself. This is certainly the easiest do and certainly tends to represent parity of combat in some scenario, though maybe fleeting or rare, of battle. The one you describe is the conditions likely at the onset of battle. This one is quite variable and tends to take a lot of work. Just looking at the P-47D-25. If we took it at a long distance escort and combat starts right after external tank jettison, then the combat weight of the P-47 would be close to the 14,000 lb point that you indicated, while the Bf-109 would be at a bit less, burning off climb fuel, than published loaded weight. However in the summer of '44 and later, when mainland European fields became available, then the P-47 would be more likely to have the smaller fuel weight.

Again, industry, trying to model aircraft for operations simulator purposes, spend millions of dollars on software and hardware, something I do not think game people can do or have the expertise to do. This is not to say that video game software is not a valid tool for training pilots, it is, just that it is not a precise copy of aircraft aerodynamics and environment. And whatever you do, do not believe that if you are good in a video simulator, that you would be good in an aircraft. The environment is totally different with g loads, vertigo, vibration, noise, aircraft physical communications with the pilot, physical exertions, FEAR, etc., etc., etc.

I understand Ctrian's argument, but have to believe that no matter what the actual validity of simm data, it should be less trusted than other types of sources I listed in an earlier posting. When a conflict between sources occurs, I think it wise to rely on books with footnotes, a lengthy bibliography, written by authors with good reputations, and any primary sources that can be examined.

 

[ctrian]

I think there is a misunderstanding between the engine of a sim and the data that goes into it. I'm talking about the data.
Davpalr I agree with you 100%.The 846 is not speed man it's number produced.Let me give you the entire quote as I found it :
The 226 G6/AS was from MTT Regensburg. A further 460 were conversions. in addition to 160 G-5/AS, which brings the total of AS engined 109's built in the first 5-6 months of 1944 to: 846 aircraft

 

[davparlr]

I think there is a misunderstanding between the engine of a sim and the data that goes into it. I'm talking about the data.
Davpalr I agree with you 100%.The 846 is not speed man it's number produced.Let me give you the entire quote as I found it :
The 226 G6/AS was from MTT Regensburg. A further 460 were conversions. in addition to 160 G-5/AS, which brings the total of AS engined 109's built in the first 5-6 months of 1944 to: 846 aircraft

Thanks for the clarification. There is no doubt that there were some German aircraft including the Bf-109K and other versions that the P-51 nor the P-47 wanted to tangle with. Unfortunately for the Germans, they were either too few or too late or both to help stop the onslaught.

 

[Readie]

I have followed this thread and have to admit to a spot of confusion chaps...
What criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter?
Please sum it all up...
Cheers
John

 

[Lighthunmust]

I have followed this thread and have to admit to a spot of confusion chaps...
What criteria should be used for determining the best land based piston fighter?
Please sum it all up...
Cheers
John

To sum it up: it is a work in progress. The most important thing to remember about this thread is it has it own reality, it is not historical from the stand point of what did or could have taken place in WW2. The thread asks you to do a deceptively complex task and the way it asks for this could have been presented with more clarity and precision. As the thread evolved I have tried to address clarity and precision issues. Start by carefully reading Posting #1 and the notes added at the bottom. Read the posts mentioned in the notes and read my post #161. Thank you for your patience.

 

[davparlr]

An enigma to me is the Vought F2G-1, which went into production. It was very fast at SL, 399 mph, but rather slow at altitude, 431mph at 16400 ft. It seems that with a good supercharger it would have made an incredible plane. The Republic XP-72, using the same engine, had very impressive performance, around 490 mph at altitude. Of course it had a turbo. Still, you would think the F2G-1 would have been pretty good, but it faded away.

 

[P-40K-5]

I think you may want to give this a little more analysis. Bf109 losses due to pilot error were so extremely high due to its landing gear that alone may be reason for elimination, amongst other reasons.

the Bf109's landing gear had very little to do with it. green pilots raising the tailwheel before the rudder became effective
was the primary reason for broken 109's. the trick was to build up sufficiant speed " fly it on the ground", while keeping
the tailwheel on the ground. one corrected the yaw with the brakes. once the rudder became effective, let the tail come up.
flying and landing the 109 was easy. and in reality, it was more like 10% loss to ground accidents. thanks.

 

[Shortround6]

"Good" superchargers for work at 20,000ft and up are incredibly bulky and require an inter-cooler/after-cooler to reach anywhere near their full potential.

See: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UIS.gif

Please note that shows only one side of the intake system for a F4U. The size of the piping/ducts and inter-cooler would have to go up in proportion. The size of a two stage supercharger and inter-cooler system to feed a 4360 cu in engine might nave been more than they could fit in the Corsair.

 

[Lighthunmust]

the Bf109's landing gear had very little to do with it. green pilots raising the tailwheel before the rudder became effective
was the primary reason for broken 109's. the trick was to build up sufficiant speed " fly it on the ground", while keeping
the tailwheel on the ground. one corrected the yaw with the brakes. once the rudder became effective, let the tail come up.
flying and landing the 109 was easy. and in reality, it was more like 10% loss to ground accidents. thanks.

What is your source for this detailed explanation and percentage of loss? In forty years of reading I have never come across this. I have a very hard time believing that what I have heard about its landing characteristics, especially on unimproved strips, caused by the narrow gear with angled wheels was not a major contributor to loss also. You never here much about Spitfires having as much of a problem and I have read it was due to not having angled wheels. For forty years it has been gospel that approximately a third of 109s were lost to accidents on the ground. Please enlighten me if I am wrong.

 

[Lighthunmust]

"Good" superchargers for work at 20,000ft and up are incredibly bulky and require an inter-cooler/after-cooler to reach anywhere near their full potential.

See: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/F4U/F4UIS.gif

Please note that shows only one side of the intake system for a F4U. The size of the piping/ducts and inter-cooler would have to go up in proportion. The size of a two stage supercharger and inter-cooler system to feed a 4360 cu in engine might nave been more than they could fit in the Corsair.

Thanks for returning, as before your contributions are invaluable. At what point does does the weight and complexity of engine driven supercharging become impractical compared to the weight and complexity of exhaust driven turbosupercharging?

 

[P-40K-5]

What is your source for this detailed explanation and percentage of loss? In forty years of reading I have never come across this. I have a very hard time believing that what I have heard about its landing characteristics, especially on unimproved strips, caused by the narrow gear with angled wheels was not a major contributor to loss also. You never here much about Spitfires having as much of a problem and I have read it was due to not having angled wheels. For forty years it has been gospel that approximately a third of 109s were lost to accidents on the ground. Please enlighten me if I am wrong.

Gunther Rall. Had the pleasure of meeting him a few years back at The Virginia Bader Aviation art museum at John Wayne Airport out in California.
They were promoting Nicholas Trudjian's Aviation Art book. I purchased the book and both singed it.

anyways,

thats the reasoning he gave for the " mis-information" on the messer.

 

[Shortround6]

Thanks for returning, as before your contributions are invaluable. At what point does does the weight and complexity of engine driven supercharging become impractical compared to the weight and complexity of exhaust driven turbosupercharging?

It is hard to say because nobody ever set up the SAME engine with both a TWO stage-engine driven supercharger and a TWO stage turbo-supercharger and got the same performance. The R-2800 is one of two engines that had both systems and the Turbo-engine (P-47) could make 2000hp fairly early on at 27,000ft. 52" of manifold pressure and 2700RPM. The Corsair got 1650hp at 53" manifold pressure/2700RPM at 21,000ft (no ram)/23,000ft(ram). It was under 1500hp in a climb at 27,000ft. How much is that 33% more power at 27,000ft worth in weight and complexity?
The only other engine to use both a two stage Turbo and a two stage mechanical drive is the Allison and it gets very hard to compare because while the P-38 used inter-coolers for it's turbos the P-63 did not use an inter-cooler for it's engine which limited power right there (even if it was simpler). The post war P-82 used inter-cooled Allisons with two mechanical drive stages but by that time the P-38 was out of production and there was no equivalent model turbo engine to compare to.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Gunther Rall. Had the pleasure of meeting him a few years back at The Virginia Bader Aviation art museum at John Wayne Airport out in California.
They were promoting Nicholas Trudjian's Aviation Art book. I purchased the book and both singed it.

anyways,

thats the reasoning he gave for the " mis-information" on the messer.

That is a high quality source. I'll try to find mine for the other 20% of losses. I believe the 10% he claims is still relatively high in comparison to other fighters. Anyone have the stats for British and American fighters close at hand?

 

[Lighthunmust]

It is hard to say because nobody ever set up the SAME engine with both a TWO stage-engine driven supercharger and a TWO stage turbo-supercharger and got the same performance. The R-2800 is one of two engines that had both systems and the Turbo-engine (P-47) could make 2000hp fairly early on at 27,000ft. 52" of manifold pressure and 2700RPM. The Corsair got 1650hp at 53" manifold pressure/2700RPM at 21,000ft (no ram)/23,000ft(ram). It was under 1500hp in a climb at 27,000ft. How much is that 33% more power at 27,000ft worth in weight and complexity?
The only other engine to use both a two stage Turbo and a two stage mechanical drive is the Allison and it gets very hard to compare because while the P-38 used inter-coolers for it's turbos the P-63 did not use an inter-cooler for it's engine which limited power right there (even if it was simpler). The post war P-82 used inter-cooled Allisons with two mechanical drive stages but by that time the P-38 was out of production and there was no equivalent model turbo engine to compare to.

I thought that may be a difficult question to answer. I guess we can only extrapolate and estimate. What amount of NO2 would a supercharged fighter need to carry to have adequate capability to compete against a turbosupercharged fighter during an average amount of time during combat maneuvers above 25K? I suspect an impracticable amount.

 

[P-40K-5]

That is a high quality source. I'll try to find mine for the other 20% of losses. I believe the 10% he claims is still relatively high in comparison to other fighters. Anyone have the stats for British and American fighters close at hand?

one of the best sources of the 109.

I think the problem (mis-information) lies with American Pilots test flying Bf109's during the big one in Europe.
they usually flown damaged a/c that got tweeked a little, resulting in unusual characteristics. I know the ones
shipped to the states ( may have been at the Curtiss-Wright factory not 100% sure) and rebuilt properly they had no problems
with.

this is just my humble opinion.

 

[Lighthunmust]

one of the best sources of the 109.

I think the problem (mis-information) lies with American Pilots test flying Bf109's during the big one in Europe.
they usually flown damaged a/c that got tweeked a little, resulting in unusual characteristics. I know the ones
shipped to the states ( may have been at the Curtiss-Wright factory not 100% sure) and rebuilt properly they had no problems
with.

this is just my humble opinion.

Would you agree the 109 suffered a significantly higher loss rate due to its landing gear than other fighters?

 

[P-40K-5]

Would you agree the 109 suffered a significantly higher loss rate due to its landing gear than other fighters?

yes, but only as far too say during taxing. but not as a result of take-offs or Landings. as stated above for take-off accidents, landing accidents would obviously
be for a damaged a/c or running out of fuel. combine that with the primative airfields, I don't think to many a/c would fare well.

also, no doubt there were accidents that was the direct result of the landing gear. the angles caused quit a bit of stress and led to landing gear failor.
whether it was more so then other a/c.. hard to say.

 

[Njaco]

P-40K is correct ...as there have been several threads on the forum over the years dscussing this.

 

[Lighthunmust]

P-40K is correct ...as there have been several threads on the forum over the years dscussing this.

I'm leaning over the fence in your direction, but I'm not yet ready to climb over. If possible could you provide links please. Thank you.